Motivation
English is a foreign language (EFL) in Taiwan, so students rarely have the opportunities to communicate in English in their daily life. College freshmen are often mystified and discouraged by the discrepancy between their reading comprehension and oral proficiency, i.e., they can recognize quite an amount of vocabulary in reading, but when it comes to oral production, they often get stuck because of unknown vocabulary and momentarily irretrievable expressions. They may find it hard to assemble grammatically correct sentences under time pressure, let along achieving discourse level clarity and coherence. Furthermore, Chinese, their first language (L1), may pop up in their minds in the form of words, phrases, or sentences when they speak English. Some may even have to plan the entire response in Chinese before mentally translating it into English.
While some may believe that doing mental translation when speaking a second language (L2) or a foreign language (FL)1 is possibly “using a limiting and unnecessary process that leaves out intuition” (Muciaccia, 2012, p. 2), using translation in learning and producing L2 is a natural and inevitable cognitive activity, and learners can benefit from using translation as a learning strategy to memorize, comprehend, and produce L2, as well as to lower their anxiety and frustration during the learning process (廖柏森, 2003). In fact, a survey study conducted on more than 350 EFL learners in Taiwan showed that they overwhelmingly believed that translation played a positive role in helping them acquire English language skills, such as vocabulary, reading, writing, and speaking, and that they used translation moderately as a learning strategy (Liao, 2006).
1 For convenience sake, English is referred to as L2 in this study.
2
According to Brown, (2007b), a learner’s native language plays an extremely significant role in the acquisition of the target language; the effects it has on comprehension and production of the new language are both facilitating and interfering, yet the facilitating effects are often ignored because they are usually less observable.
From the perspective of cognitive psychology, L1 is prior knowledge. If we accept the fact that new knowledge is acquired through pre-existing knowledge, then it is natural that we fall back to our L1 to a certain extent when learning a L2. As Ortega (2009) puts it:
All L2 acquirers, by definition, possess complete knowledge of an L1, and often knowledge of other languages, when they begin learning the additional one. Many of them, indeed, will begin acquiring their L2 after many years of being able users of another language. Thus, previous language knowledge is an important source of influence on L2 acquisition, and this holds universally true of all L2 learners.
(p. 31)
In a social context where a second language is mostly a foreign language, I believe we can treat L1 as a friend, not an enemy, and that translation and interpreting activities can be used creatively in a language class. Using translation (a broad term that includes interpreting) as an in-class activity or technique does not mean going back to the grammar-translation method. Instead, it can be intelligently incorporated into the language classroom that follows the principles of communicative language teaching (CLT) to enhance learners’ communicative competence (e.g., 廖柏森, 2003; Laufer &
Girsai, 2008; Van Dyk, 2009; Zohrevandi, 1994).
Theoretical Background
To incorporate interpreting activities into a college-level language class, interpreting skills that best meet L2 learners’ needs should be pinpointed to maximize
3
the potential effects of interpreting training. Common preparatory exercises in interpreting training include reading-aloud, speech delivery, discourse analysis, gist-extracting/summarizing, memory and recall training, paraphrasing, and transcription exercise (李翠芳, 1996; 劉敏華, 2002). Specific to consecutive interpreting (CI) is the skill of note-taking (李翠芳, 1996; 劉敏華, 2002). In simultaneous interpreting (SI), skills include shadowing, multi-tasking (李翠芳, 1996; 劉敏華, 2002), distancing exercises, anticipation of speaker and speech direction, and sentence reduction (Wu, 1999).
If the goal of interpreting training in the language classroom is to enhance L2 learners’ oral proficiency, what should be highlighted is L2 production-related skills, rather than L2 reception-related skills, or language-unrelated skills such as memory or note-taking. This is because receptive and productive knowledge is not completely transferable (DeKeyser, 1997), which means that even if interpreting training is carried out with balanced practice in both directions (such as from English to Chinese and vice versa), the time spent on L2 listening comprehension does not automatically lead to improvement in L2 oral production.
A lot of the above-mentioned preparatory skills have their roots in second language acquisition (SLA) and are not unique to interpreting training, which means that they can be practiced in a regular English class without going through the route of interpreting activities. One of the components relatively unique to interpreting and might benefit L2 learners’ oral output is interpreting strategies.
The use of interpreting strategies can be defined as “any goal-oriented, potentially conscious employment of tactics designed to overcome the processing problems interpreters encountered during simultaneous interpreting” (Chang, 2005, p. 6). This is consistent with the two defining criteria of communication strategies in SLA: problem-orientedness and consciousness (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997). Yet, in some other studies on
4
interpreting strategies, consciousness is sometimes not explicitly included in their working definitions (e.g., Al-Salman & Al-Khanji, 2002). Furthermore, in addition to problem-solving, potential problem-preventing and task-facilitating are sometimes included as the other criteria for interpreting strategies (e.g., Bartlomiejczyk, 2006; Li, 2013). Interpreting strategies in this study are broadly defined as “strategies, skills, and tactics that are problem-solving, problem-preventing, or message-enhancing.” They may be used consciously or unconsciously by interpreters. (See chapter 3 for more elaborated working definitions of interpreting strategies in this study.)
Professional interpreters sometimes have to interpret from their dominant language (A language) into their weaker language (B-language). This direction is called retour, A-to-B, or into-B interpreting. Appropriate use of interpreting strategies and awareness of interpreting norms allow professional interpreters to accomplish communicative tasks, despite the fact that their B-language resources are relatively limited (Chang & Schallert, 2007). To compensate for the limited linguistic resources when doing retour interpreting, interpreters with Chinese as their A language use meaning-based strategies, such as transformation and generalization that express the sense of the messages, rather than trying to find ideal or idiomatic equivalents; they delete redundancy and less important information, focusing instead on important messages to keep the delivery fluent, coherent, and logical; and they devote more attention to the acceptability and the overall quality of their interpreting output (Chang
& Schallert, 2007).
Interpreting strategies have long been the focus of interests in interpreting studies (e.g., Al-Khanji, El-Shiyab, & Hussein, 2000; Bartlomiejczyk, 2006; Donato, 2003;
Kohn & Kalina, 1996). This study did not attempt to re-define the existing typologies on interpreting strategies proposed by different scholars, but focused on how some of the strategies could be adapted and taught in an undergraduate English class to enhance
5
students’ flexibility and resourcefulness when speaking English. Van Dyk (2009), who suggests teaching strategies via the activity of sight translation (ST) in the language classroom, argues that rather than teaching language that aims at “accumulating terms and rules, students should learn how to activate the limited target language they already possess” (p. 208). Using limited resources in one’s B language to achieve the purpose of communication is what L2 leaners can learn from professional interpreters.
Although interpreting strategies are highlighted in some interpreting training books (e.g., Gile, 2009; Jones, 2002), the implementation of strategy instruction is largely prescriptive (e.g., Wu, 1999). In terms of the teachability of interpreting strategies, a study utilizing retrospection and questionnaires showed a moderate correlation between teachers’ strategy instruction and undergraduate trainees’ strategy use in English-to-Chinese CI tasks (Li, 2013). There is still a long way to go in identifying what interpreting strategies to teach to undergraduate non-English majors, and how to teach them effectively, systematically, and explicitly for the purpose of enhancing L2 oral proficiency.
Although the benefits of interpreting activities in the language classroom have been proposed (e.g., 劉 敏 華 , 2002; Van Dyk, 2009; Zohrevandi, 1994), the few empirical studies on the effectiveness of interpreting training on L2 learners’ oral proficiency have produced mixed results. For instance, 廖柏森 and 徐慧蓮 (2004) found that a group of EFL learners in Taiwan taking a year-long interpreting course did not show significant improvement in their oral proficiency, compared with the control group who took a regular English oral training class for the same length of time. On the other hand, Yagi’s (2000) modified simultaneous interpreting drill in the form of back-interpreting led to significantly better L2 speaking performance on the same task due to higher retention of language items and increased fluency. The present study
6
attempted to examine if a strategy-focused Chinese-to-English interpreting training could enhance Taiwan college-level EFL learners’ oral proficiency in unpracticed tasks.
Research Purpose and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is twofold: First, to design and implement an interpreting training course for undergraduate EFL learners to enhance their English oral proficiency;
second, to examine whether, why, and how the training might affect their English oral proficiency. The training has two main components: interpreting strategy instruction and back-interpreting practice from Chinese (L1/A language) to English (L2/B language).
The four main research questions of this study are as follows:
1. What interpreting strategies to teach and how to teach them in an undergraduate English class?
2. How does this Chinese-to-English (C-to-E) interpreting strategy training affect the L2 learners’ English oral proficiency?
3. How do the learners apply interpreting strategies to their English speaking?
4. How do the learners respond to this interpreting strategy training?
In the following chapters of this dissertation, chapter 2 will justify the rationale for C-to-E interpreting strategy instruction and back-interpreting practice in the language classroom. In terms of what strategies to teach, the pedagogical values of production-related interpreting strategies identified in previous empirical research and recommended by interpreting trainers are evaluated. As for how to teach these strategies, principles of strategy instruction and teaching L2 speaking in SLA are reviewed to create valid procedures for teaching interpreting strategies and for conducting interpreting practice under the framework of CLT. Details on the development of teaching materials for strategy instruction, back-interpreting practice, and other components of oral training will be expounded in chapter 3.
7
Chapter 4 will describe the research design of this study, including oral proficiency testing and teaching procedures. This study had two groups of participants: The experimental group (EG) consisted of 43 freshmen, while the control group (CG) had 24. The EG, receiving a three-month treatment, was instructed on interpreting strategies followed by C-to-E back-interpreting practice. On the other hand, although the CG received no interpreting strategy instruction, the materials for listening comprehension, discussions, and other components of the course were the same as those used in the EG.
Chapter 5 will report the results of research questions 2 to 4. To answer the second question, two raters scored the participants’ oral proficiency in both pretest and posttest, adapted from IELTS speaking tests. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were conducted to examine significant between-group and within-group differences in the total scores and the detailed aspects of the tests.
To answer the third question, nine EG participants did stimulated retrospective interviews and individual interviews right after their individual posttest. Transcripts of these nine participants’ posttest oral output, their self-interpreting speaking assignments, and segments from in-class debates were analyzed to identify strategy use, which was triangulated with their remarks and comments from retrospective interviews, individual interviews, focus group interviews, and self-evaluation worksheets.
In terms of the fourth question, End-of-term Questionnaire was implemented to understand the participants’ perceptions of the interpreting training. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Moreover, qualitative accounts from semi-structured focus group interviews were analyzed to gain further insights into the intricate learning and teaching processes.
Chapter 6 will put the findings into a broader context. I summarize and discuss the interpreting training and the learners’ responses to the training, exploring potential relationships between their proficiency gains and strategy use.
8
Value of Research
Five features set this study apart. First, this quasi-experimental research on the effectiveness of interpreting training on EFL learners’ oral proficiency singles out the strategic component of interpreting and focuses solely on the direction of Chinese-to-English (L1-to-L2/A-to-B). Second, the interpreting strategies taught are empirically and/or theoretically valid. Third, theories in SLA provide basis for the design and implementation of interpreting strategy instruction and back-interpreting practice, activating cognitive, metacognitive, and social affective aspects of learning. Fourth, the meaning-focused interpreting training and in-class discussions are supplemented with form-focused activities, such as noticing of formulaic sequences. In this way, learners are not only using strategies to activate the limited resources they already possess, but also learning target language items. Fifth, the elicitation tasks on oral proficiency are unpracticed open-questions, examining whether the benefits (if any) of interpreting training can transfer to other contexts.
It is hypothesized that the EG participants, especially those with lower speaking proficiency, would benefit from this interpreting training, as shown in the improvement of their oral proficiency and the effectiveness of their strategy use. Even if no significant improvement can be detected, interpreting strategy instruction and interpreting activities can still be a welcome addition to a conventional English class for fun, diversity, and challenge. Finally, the interpreting strategies streamlined for pedagogical purposes and the instructional procedures developed in this study may be used in interpreting courses at undergraduate level, especially when teaching C-to-E interpreting to novices. The strategies skilled interpreters employ to deal with cognitive and temporal constraints and to enhance communication effectiveness might benefit both L2 learners and interpreting novices.
9